To all,
I was fumbling around Orion's website and I found the Skywatcher AZ EQ6 is being marketed in the USA under Orion. It's called the Orion Atlas Pro AZ/EQ-G Computerized GoTo Telescope Mount. I don't know if anyone discovered this, but here it is. Expected ship date is the end of January 2013, but is priced at $2300!!!! The LX80 is amazingly priced to this. But I bet this will be better quality.

Three-in-one GoTo mount can operate in GoTo Equatorial mode holding one telescope, or in GoTo Altazimuth mode holding one or two different telescopesCapable of holding a 44-pound telescope payload -- ideal for any observational or astrophotographic pursuitsAccurate belt-driven stepper motor drive system can locate any of over 42,000 celestial curiosities with tracking precision of 0.1436 arc-second stepsFeatures closed-loop electronics to maintain alignment even after an inadvertent bump or nudgeFeatures a dual-width dovetail saddle for use with narrow or wide dovetail plates, a 1" diameter counterweight shaft, a built-in autoguider port, PEC capability, and 9 different slew speeds

I hope it is a great mount! At $2300 it is beyond what I could pay so the LX80 would still th only mount like this that is in the running for my money. I'm looking forward to hearing from some early users.

It definitely has my interest peaked. I was looking to spend some money on a cgem/cgem dx, but with the 3 in 1 package listed here, I'm all ears. Especially with Orion's customer service background. I haven't heard any negative reviews of them, that I can remember. The dual mount would be awesome for outreaches or when my in laws come over.

I'll wait until I can get an LX800 OTA and reducer, and until this one is under $2000. However, I'm glad Orion brought it in. I had some email exchanges with them when it was announced that indicated they were at least looking into it, and it appears like they were on top of things as usual.

To compare the Skywatcher to the LX-80 is like comparing apples to...rocks. While they may have some of the same features they are completely different mounts and any comparison is unfair to the AZ EQ6. While the price difference does put it in another class than the LX-80 it to me looks to be worth the extra cost in apparent engineering and manufacturing processes though that is yet to be seen. This just might be the mount Meade got me excited about over a year ago as it has the features I am looking for.

To compare the Skywatcher to the LX-80 is like comparing apples to...rocks. While they may have some of the same features they are completely different mounts and any comparison is unfair to the AZ EQ6. While the price difference does put it in another class than the LX-80 it to me looks to be worth the extra cost in apparent engineering and manufacturing processes though that is yet to be seen. This just might be the mount Meade got me excited about over a year ago as it has the features I am looking for.

Same here. Dang that LX80.

Not that it's quite as bad as you would think from some of the postings here. I had a chance to try Jack Huerkamp's 80 recently, and it, I thought, was OK for visual or maybe even video. IF you keep the payload to a C8 or at most a C9.25. 40 pounds? I don' THEEENK so, Lucy.

At its original price, I might still be tempted. At the one grand level? No way. And I would be concerned about continuing support for it if things get worse at Meade.

As for th AZ-EQ6? Time will tell, but I wouldn't pay that much of a premium for just an alt-az mode and some encoders--assuming that performance wise it is similar to the Atlas EQ6. We will see.

AZ: Height range of mount 29.00 in. - 49.00 in.
Original: Height range of mount 40.00 in. - 61.50 in.
"The height range specification is a measure of the tripod itself - not the eyepiece height. Since telescopes come in all shapes and sizes, the eyepiece height will vary, even when using the same tripod. For an EQ tripod the mount is set up so the counterweight shaft is horizontal, and then the height is measured from the ground to the center of the mounting plate."

The LX80 did not do video well in Alt-Az with the 9.25 at 22# with a 22# counterweight. With about 15# and the supplied 11" counterweight the LX80 performed well with my MalinCams at ECVAR. I got up to 75 seconds with a C6 HyperStar while looking at the Helix. I have been busy since returning from DSRSG, but I do hope to test out further the LX80 with my video cameras.

There seems to be a power requirements difference between the Skywatcher and the Orion version. Skywatcher indicates that it uses 12V DC 3A, whereas the Orion uses 12-volt DC 5A and they have an "optional" 5-amp AC-to-DC converter for it.

There seems to be a power requirements difference between the Skywatcher and the Orion version. Skywatcher indicates that it uses 12V DC 3A, whereas the Orion uses 12-volt DC 5A and they have an "optional" 5-amp AC-to-DC converter for it.

JohnD

I doubt that that represents any real difference. A 5 or 3A converter will probably be fine with either.

Skywatcher/Orion's AZ-EQ6 is a completely different mount than Meade's LX80.Stating that one is a rebranded (Skywatcher's version of Meade) is like saying Apple iPad-mini is a version of Google Nexus 7 .

Not only the mechanical design is completely different, the GOTO systems are also different. AZ-EQ6 is a SynScan microstepping system while LX80 is a classic 497 DC Perm-mag servo motor based design.

Skywatcher/Orion's AZ-EQ6 is a completely different mount than Meade's LX80.
Stating that one is a rebranded (Skywatcher's version of Meade) is like saying Apple iPad-mini is a version of Google Nexus 7 .

Not only the mechanical design is completely different, the GOTO systems are also different. AZ-EQ6 is a SynScan microstepping system while LX80 is a classic 497 DC Perm-mag servo motor based design.

Clear Skies!

ccs_hello

You changed the subject title of someone elses thread? Bad form! And thanks for reinforcing what I said in an earlier post.